Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Replies
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I just can't fathom how you are drawing your lines. Giant corporation growing bananas and picking them early to ripen on the truck while taking them all over (to places they would never grow) = natural. Eating foods not available where you live without industrialization = natural. Canning or freezing vegetables (if a big company) so they are available out of season = unnatural. Canning them yourself = natural. Grinding up corn or flour or selling dried pasta = unnatural. Smoking salmon or making cheese = unnatural. Going to a restaurant and having a chef cook you food = unnatural? Raising cows to have their milk = natural. Raising cattle for their meat = natural, even if they are penned up and fed foods which aren't the best for them.
Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
Hmm, you seem to be confusing who said what. I never said canning or freezing vegetables was unnatural. I never said anything about smoked salmon or cheese or going to a restaurant or selling pasta or milk being natural.
I don't see how who grows the food or how it gets to your table affects how natural an ingredient is. Diet can affect how natural meat is according to how natural the food is, not by who provides the food. Natural is affected by things like additives and processes that change the ingredient.
These are my general thoughts which allow for much interpretation and waffling on my part. Sorry you are having a hard time understanding.
Well, you ignored the key point of my post: Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
And yes, I don't understand the distinctions you are making (ground beef = unclean?). Any food is changed in cooking and incorporating in a recipe, so why is grinding = unnatural but chopping up and cooking not? Why wouldn't almond milk (which I can make easily) be natural? Why is adding salt to food natural if it's sea salt or some such, but not kosher salt? And again, why is it "natural" to eat a food out of season or to domesticate animals or to cart it about, but not to cut it up really small?
Does any of this make a bit of difference other than over what gets the term "clean" applied to it in your definition (which seems quite a bit different than other definitions)?
I never said ground beef was unclean or not clean.
Why the distinction? Because it's what the term "eating clean" means to me and the OP asked.
Why keep asking for the term to be defined if you can't understand the definition? Mine seems very simple to me - think about the ingredients in a food and determine how close they are to the natural state of the ingredient. The closer it is the cleaner it is.
22 pages in, I'm not sure that anyone gets to lay the blame at my feet for why they're still posting here. I actually asked two questions in the OP and included a disclaimer that there would be a lot of debate in this thread. You know you can leave at any time, right?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
To see what they have in common? After all, they will assert you "You know what I mean" when you ask them what they mean.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I just can't fathom how you are drawing your lines. Giant corporation growing bananas and picking them early to ripen on the truck while taking them all over (to places they would never grow) = natural. Eating foods not available where you live without industrialization = natural. Canning or freezing vegetables (if a big company) so they are available out of season = unnatural. Canning them yourself = natural. Grinding up corn or flour or selling dried pasta = unnatural. Smoking salmon or making cheese = unnatural. Going to a restaurant and having a chef cook you food = unnatural? Raising cows to have their milk = natural. Raising cattle for their meat = natural, even if they are penned up and fed foods which aren't the best for them.
Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
Hmm, you seem to be confusing who said what. I never said canning or freezing vegetables was unnatural. I never said anything about smoked salmon or cheese or going to a restaurant or selling pasta or milk being natural.
I don't see how who grows the food or how it gets to your table affects how natural an ingredient is. Diet can affect how natural meat is according to how natural the food is, not by who provides the food. Natural is affected by things like additives and processes that change the ingredient.
These are my general thoughts which allow for much interpretation and waffling on my part. Sorry you are having a hard time understanding.
Well, you ignored the key point of my post: Ultimately, what's the point? You seem to be also saying that you aren't claiming that "natural" or "cleaner" = better. So why make the distinctions which really don't seem all that obvious?
And yes, I don't understand the distinctions you are making (ground beef = unclean?). Any food is changed in cooking and incorporating in a recipe, so why is grinding = unnatural but chopping up and cooking not? Why wouldn't almond milk (which I can make easily) be natural? Why is adding salt to food natural if it's sea salt or some such, but not kosher salt? And again, why is it "natural" to eat a food out of season or to domesticate animals or to cart it about, but not to cut it up really small?
Does any of this make a bit of difference other than over what gets the term "clean" applied to it in your definition (which seems quite a bit different than other definitions)?
I never said ground beef was unclean or not clean.
Why the distinction? Because it's what the term "eating clean" means to me and the OP asked.
Why keep asking for the term to be defined if you can't understand the definition? Mine seems very simple to me - think about the ingredients in a food and determine how close they are to the natural state of the ingredient. The closer it is the cleaner it is.
22 pages in, I'm not sure that anyone gets to lay the blame at my feet for why they're still posting here. I actually asked two questions in the OP and included a disclaimer that there would be a lot of debate in this thread. You know you can leave at any time, right?
Naturally, I do. :laugh: Sorry, I amuse myself.
My intention wasn't to place blame as I didn't know blame was needed. I responded originally because you asked. I kept responding because others quoted me and asked questions and I enjoyed the discussion.0 -
All of these people are completely wrong.
Almost all of my diet consists of clean eating. In the morning I have a bowl of soap, followed by a snack of dish detergent. I drink a gallon of bleach a day, and often chase that down with ammonia. For lunch and dinner I make a shake out of windex and Ajax household cleaner. This is key, because according to mythology Ajax was absolutely yoked, and I want to be as swole as that legend.
So, eat clean like me, and you'll live a long strong healthy life.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.
I think I get it. I wouldn't personally draw the lines where you do in terms of what is closer to being natural, but I think I can understand where you're coming from in your definition of clean.
So, if I understand, from your perspective masa harina (corn flour mixed with calcium hydroxide) is less clean than straight corn flour which is less clean than whole corn.
Where I'm confused is this.
You and I seem to share the assumption that to the usual "clean eater" on MFP "clean" is believed to relate to something positive re nutrition. You suggest that we answer as if the OP asked about "nutrient dense" foods. I think it's important to point out that "clean" (which people usually explain as "non processed") is NOT the same as nutrient dense and suggest that processed foods can help meet a goal of eating a diet that is more nutritious if that is what is actually wanted. (If someone really wants to eliminate all processed foods, whatever -- good to know that before suggesting recipes and answering about the chili, though.) ;-)
From what I gather from Need2, she is not claiming that clean maps on to nutritionally dense or even any nutritional benefit at all. (She did claim earlier in the thread that grinding = not clean, and I see no reason why grinding up beef would make it less nutritious, for example.) In fact, she objects to my dislike of the language "clean" and denies that it inherently makes a value judgment. According to her, "clean" is just a neutral term coined by hippies to mean more natural.
So my question is that if you don't think it is better or maps on to nutrient quality at all, why would you even bother making a distinction between foods based on how clean they are (especially if one ignores other aspects of naturalness, like whether they are in season or local, again, or the diet the animal is fed)? What is being said when one says "I'm a clean eater"?0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.
I think I get it. I wouldn't personally draw the lines where you do in terms of what is closer to being natural, but I think I can understand where you're coming from in your definition of clean.
So, if I understand, from your perspective masa harina (corn flour mixed with calcium hydroxide) is less clean than straight corn flour which is less clean than whole corn.
Where I'm confused is this.
You and I seem to share the assumption that to the usual "clean eater" on MFP "clean" is believed to relate to something positive re nutrition. You suggest that we answer as if the OP asked about "nutrient dense" foods. I think it's important to point out that "clean" (which people usually explain as "non processed") is NOT the same as nutrient dense and suggest that processed foods can help meet a goal of eating a diet that is more nutritious if that is what is actually wanted. (If someone really wants to eliminate all processed foods, whatever -- good to know that before suggesting recipes and answering about the chili, though.) ;-)
From what I gather from Need2, she is not claiming that clean maps on to nutritionally dense or even any nutritional benefit at all. (She did claim earlier in the thread that grinding = not clean, and I see no reason why grinding up beef would make it less nutritious, for example.) In fact, she objects to my dislike of the language "clean" and denies that it inherently makes a value judgment. According to her, "clean" is just a neutral term coined by hippies to mean more natural.
So my question is that if you don't think it is better or maps on to nutrient quality at all, why would you even bother making a distinction between foods based on how clean they are (especially if one ignores other aspects of naturalness, like whether they are in season or local, again, or the diet the animal is fed)? What is being said when one says "I'm a clean eater"?
I suppose if someone who says they're a clean eater or looking for clean recipes is using that to say they don't eat "processed" foods, it might be better to clarify that before responding. I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods. I won't deny there are some seemingly random definitions from people on what constitutes clean (and conversely, processed). If someone says "I'm a clean eater" I always take that to mean that they are trying to eat a diet of mostly fresh foods to meet their nutritional requirements.
I personally make no distinctions at all between foods. I include anything in my diet that I find palatable. Growing up with a father whose job it was to evaluate and create new foods for the military ensured that I heard a lot of talk on the "science" of food, so I never attributed good or bad values to food. I do find it fascinating that there are some people who do make that distinction (which is why I'm here participating). @Need2Exerc1se , is it true that you don't equate eating mostly clean with eating more nutritious? (I might have missed that in my first read through this thread.) If that's the case, why place a cleanliness value on any food?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
^^^^^This!!!!janejellyroll wrote: »Clean eating seems more like a religion than a coherent way to choose food.
A very vague religion with no real doctrine.
Come worship and the dining table and be converted!!
I'm a doctrine guy myself.0 -
I'll never trust Himalayan salt. It purports to contain 85 elements - yet of the 94 naturally occurring elements, 2 have all decayed out of the Earth's crust, 2 more at least have only been observed in specialized labs, 6 are gases that would stay in a salt - well that leaves 84 elements. The bigger problem I have is even if the 85 number is true, several of those left in the 84 I mentioned are rather radioactive (uranium, thorium and other actinides) or poisonous (arsenic, mercury (which could, admittedly, come in no poisonous forms)).
Why am I paying extra to eat a pinkish salt that contains poison and radiation?1 -
I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.0 -
I'll never trust Himalayan salt. It purports to contain 85 elements - yet of the 94 naturally occurring elements, 2 have all decayed out of the Earth's crust, 2 more at least have only been observed in specialized labs, 6 are gases that would stay in a salt - well that leaves 84 elements. The bigger problem I have is even if the 85 number is true, several of those left in the 84 I mentioned are rather radioactive (uranium, thorium and other actinides) or poisonous (arsenic, mercury (which could, admittedly, come in no poisonous forms)).
Why am I paying extra to eat a pinkish salt that contains poison and radiation?
Because the contaminants make it cleaner than plain old NaCl. Common sense.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The chocolate and sodas are on the outside isle of the grocery store for me, so I'm totally down with that definition.
I'll take that definition, too. I've got ice cream on one end, the bakery at the back and pizzas and make at home donairs on the other end. I'm such a clean eater!
0 -
Why “Clean Eating” is a Myth
http://www.completehumanperformance.com/clean-eating/
The biggest problem with the idea of “clean eating” is that “clean” has no objective definition. Everyone believes different foods are “unclean.”
Vegetarians: Animal meat.
Vegans: All animal products.
Bodybuilders: Milk, fruit, and white bread.
Paleo: Grains, legumes, dairy, refined oils, added salt, sugar, alcohol, and some vegetables.
USDA/United States Government: Saturated fat, cholesterol, red meat, eggs, trans-fats.
Low-carb: Sugar and other carbs.
Hippies: Artificial sweeteners, processed foods, cooked foods, packaged foods, BPA.
It’s safe to say that for every food, there’s someone saying it’s dangerous.
There’s no way to define clean eating, which means there’s no way to measure or quantify what effect this concept might have on your health. There’s also no way to objectively compare a “clean diet” to other diets.1 -
I'll never trust Himalayan salt. It purports to contain 85 elements - yet of the 94 naturally occurring elements, 2 have all decayed out of the Earth's crust, 2 more at least have only been observed in specialized labs, 6 are gases that would stay in a salt - well that leaves 84 elements. The bigger problem I have is even if the 85 number is true, several of those left in the 84 I mentioned are rather radioactive (uranium, thorium and other actinides) or poisonous (arsenic, mercury (which could, admittedly, come in no poisonous forms)).
Why am I paying extra to eat a pinkish salt that contains poison and radiation?
Would like @Need2Exerc1se to comment on this.0 -
http://wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/
The Dirt on Clean Eating by Alan Aragon
Final Note: Linear Versus Nonlinear Distribution
A legitimate question is, what’s the best way to distribute discretionary calories? Should they be confined to a daily limit, or can it be a weekly limit? The best answer is to let personal preference decide. If we use a 2000 kcal diet as an example, a flat/linear approach would mean that 200-400 kcal per day can come from whatever you want, while meeting essential needs otherwise in the diet. Weekly, this translates to 1400-2800 kcal, depending on the factors I previously discussed. One nonlinear option would be to break the weekly allotment in half, where 2 days per week you indulge in 700-1400 kcal of whatever you want, keeping the remaining 5 days relatively Spartan. Again, there is no universally superior method of distributing the discretionary allotment. The same principle applies to the choice of foods to fulfill it. Honoring personal preference is one of the most powerful yet underrated tactics for achieving optimal health and body composition. And that’s the nitty-gritty as I see it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.
I think I get it. I wouldn't personally draw the lines where you do in terms of what is closer to being natural, but I think I can understand where you're coming from in your definition of clean.
So, if I understand, from your perspective masa harina (corn flour mixed with calcium hydroxide) is less clean than straight corn flour which is less clean than whole corn.
Where I'm confused is this.
You and I seem to share the assumption that to the usual "clean eater" on MFP "clean" is believed to relate to something positive re nutrition. You suggest that we answer as if the OP asked about "nutrient dense" foods. I think it's important to point out that "clean" (which people usually explain as "non processed") is NOT the same as nutrient dense and suggest that processed foods can help meet a goal of eating a diet that is more nutritious if that is what is actually wanted. (If someone really wants to eliminate all processed foods, whatever -- good to know that before suggesting recipes and answering about the chili, though.) ;-)
From what I gather from Need2, she is not claiming that clean maps on to nutritionally dense or even any nutritional benefit at all. (She did claim earlier in the thread that grinding = not clean, and I see no reason why grinding up beef would make it less nutritious, for example.) In fact, she objects to my dislike of the language "clean" and denies that it inherently makes a value judgment. According to her, "clean" is just a neutral term coined by hippies to mean more natural.
So my question is that if you don't think it is better or maps on to nutrient quality at all, why would you even bother making a distinction between foods based on how clean they are (especially if one ignores other aspects of naturalness, like whether they are in season or local, again, or the diet the animal is fed)? What is being said when one says "I'm a clean eater"?
I think the term was coined to mean better. Better nutrition, getting away from 'big brother', etc. And quite likely had some roots in DDT use.
I don't typically classify foods as clean unless asked, though I have been known to say I need to clean up my diet. I've never had anyone ask what I meant by that.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »I'll never trust Himalayan salt. It purports to contain 85 elements - yet of the 94 naturally occurring elements, 2 have all decayed out of the Earth's crust, 2 more at least have only been observed in specialized labs, 6 are gases that would stay in a salt - well that leaves 84 elements. The bigger problem I have is even if the 85 number is true, several of those left in the 84 I mentioned are rather radioactive (uranium, thorium and other actinides) or poisonous (arsenic, mercury (which could, admittedly, come in no poisonous forms)).
Why am I paying extra to eat a pinkish salt that contains poison and radiation?
Would like @Need2Exerc1se to comment on this.
Oh, well I'm not familiar with Himalayan salt or how many elements are naturally occurring or why anyone other than me chooses to eat what they eat, so not sure what type of comment you are looking for from me.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".0 -
These conversations go much better when the term, highly processed is used. Does not cover all circumstances but it can eliminate the majority of comedy...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".0 -
These conversations go much better when the term, highly processed is used. Does not cover all circumstances but it can eliminate the majority of comedy...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Agreed.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
Yes, I would agree on both points. Honestly, most of the time it seems to come down to how educated a person is in regards to how food is commercially prepared, and some people just have a bias when it comes to the "big, bad industrial machine" without actually understanding it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
I also agree on this. There are degrees of processing (similar to how you describe your degrees of cleanness). Oftentimes we're (generalized "we") so caught up in our own worldview and definitions we ascribe to clean and processed that conversations go nowhere (such as in the latest "i'm addicted to sugar" thread).
Communication would be so much cleaner if we could all agree on a single definition, wouldn't it?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
Yes, I would agree on both points. Honestly, most of the time it seems to come down to how educated a person is in regards to how food is commercially prepared, and some people just have a bias when it comes to the "big, bad industrial machine" without actually understanding it.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
I also agree on this. There are degrees of processing (similar to how you describe your degrees of cleanness). Oftentimes we're (generalized "we") so caught up in our own worldview and definitions we ascribe to clean and processed that conversations go nowhere (such as in the latest "i'm addicted to sugar" thread).
Communication would be so much cleaner if we could all agree on a single definition, wouldn't it?
Do we have to agree on a definition? Or can we allow a person to think of their food choices however they choose?
I do not label myself as a "clean" eater. If I were to I would think of it in terms that I have successfully managed to eat according to my eating plan.
Disclaimer...I am supposed to eat low sodium due to health reasons.
On a regular basis I stay away from "highly processed" foods. They are usually high in sodium. On a daily basis I rarely eat out due to the sodium. I need to keep my sodium between 1000-1500mgs. On the days that I managed all of this in my mind I have managed to eat a "clean" diet. In other words...I stuck to my diet plan.
The days that it all goes up in smoke...would be my "unclean" days.
I will reiterate...I do not label myself (not even a low sodium eater)...I just eat and try to make the most healthy choices for me.
Words have always evolved to take on different meanings...used differently by different groups of people.
Google..."words whose definitions have changed".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".
Yeah? Because I think Fritos are a processed food you assume I don't approve of Fritos? I guess again I'm the weirdo in the group because I think Fritos are not clean, are a processed food and would even call them junk food but I still enjoy eating them.0 -
Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.0
-
megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
It saddens me when the decision of whether or not to eat certain foods are determined by whether or not someone can sound out a word.
1 -
megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
Of all the clean eating definitions, this is by far the wackiest.
So people who are comfortable pronouncing foreign words or words that are "sciency" get to eat more foods than other people. And people with a lisp get to get fewer foods than the rest of us. People like me, who are *terrible* at pronouncing words, even ones we know well (my husband -- in a good natured way -- even pokes fun at the way I say "milk") just get to sit in the corner with . . . I guess an apple and some spinach.
And none of this is related to understanding what is actually in a food or what it does it us or how it helps or hinders us in meeting our nutritional goals . . . it's the ultimate abdication of personal agency and self-education.
1 -
megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
Oh, the countdown to someone sharing the chemical makeup of a fruit has started.0 -
What if my vocabulary is superior to yours? Does that mean the food will kill you and not me? To base your nutritional choices on your command of language is nonsensical...megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions